Summary
Forensic science is a vital instrument for the detection
of crime and the administration of justice. The Forensic Science
Service (FSS) plays a critical role in the delivery of forensic
services to the criminal justice system and has established itself
as a world leader in forensic science. In this inquiry we sought
to investigate the likely implications of the Government's plan
to develop the FSS as a Government owned company (GovCo) and possibly
a public-private partnership (PPP). This Report welcomes the fact
that, during the course of this inquiry, the Home Office stated
its intention to fully test the GovCo model for the FSS, rather
than automatically progressing to a PPP. However, we regret the
confusing way in which the Home Office announced this decision:
the mixed messages it sent out have only added to the uncertainty
over the future of the FSS. The staff of the FSS have contributed
enormously to building the reputation of the organisation and
are essential to its future success. We urge the Home Office and
senior management at the FSS to take positive steps to address
the concerns of staff and rebuild confidence within the organisation.
The lack of adequate independent oversight of the process of developing
the FSS into a GovCo and possibly a PPP is unsatisfactory and
we call for the Government to improve the transparency of this
process.
In addition, we identify a need for the Government
to implement measures to ensure that the criminal justice system
has uninterrupted access to the full range of forensic services
of the required quality standards and at affordable prices. We
recommend that a Forensic Science Advisory Council be established
to act as a regulator of the forensic services market, and to
provide a much needed overview of the process by which forensic
science is used in the criminal justice system. In light of the
changing status of the FSS, the Council could also provide a source
of independent impartial advice on forensic science to the Government,
police and others. We further criticise the fact that the Home
Office has failed to establish an independent body to oversee
the work of the National DNA Database, or to make adequate provision
for ethical and lay input. We additionally note the need for better
management of the technology transfer process to facilitate exploitation
of academic research with potential for application to crime prevention
and detection technologies.
Although we accept that flaws in expert evidence
are unlikely to have led, in isolation, to a significant number
of miscarriages of justice, it is impossible to determine the
number of cases which have been adversely affected by the conduct
of an expert, or the handling of expert evidence in court. We
emphasise that where miscarriages of justice have arisen in association
with problems in expert evidence, this reflects a systems
failure. We recommend various measures to improve the handling
of expert evidence in court, including better provision of training
for expert witnesses, lawyers and judges. We also recommend the
establishment of a Science and the Law Forum and a Scientific
Review Committee within the Criminal Cases Review Commission,
to promote communication between the scientific and legal professions
and to provide for ongoing scientific scrutiny of expert evidence.
|
